News:

In the next few days, I will convert the Forum to a new Forum Software.PLEASE SAVE YOUR OLD PRIVATE MESSAGES. IF YOU STILL NEED THEM AND THEN DELETE THEM, AS THE PRIVATE MESSAGES WILL NOT BE CONVERTED TO THE NEW FORUM AND WILL BE LOST THEN !Please still a bit patience, I still must test a few things before the conversion will be taking place.Many thanks for your help. Regards, Stefan Hartmann ( Admin)

Hi All,here comes a new sensation from an Indian university, where 2 researchershave proven, that with nanopulse excitation in an electrolysis cell you can get 31 times more HHO gas than with pure DC at the same input power.

Hi All,here comes a new sensation from an Indian university, where 2 researchershave proven, that with nanopulse excitation in an electrolysis cell you can get 31 times more HHO gas than with pure DC at the same input power.

Attached here is their PDF report findings !

Well done !

Regards, Stefan.

This report is a bit strange. The authors acknowledge that 70%-80% efficient electrolysis is currently available. Then they claim a 31X improvement over their control. Nowhere in the report did I find any sanity check of their control. So, I cranked their numbers for sanity checking purposes:

The authors claim to generate the same volume flow of gas using 0.57Watts using their pulsed set-up. That would amount not just to over unity, but a staggering 14.9W/0.57W, 26X unity.

The authors errantly describe their drive as "pulse of 200 nano second with frequency 100 MHz which is depicted in Figure 7."

Figure 7 is a trace sampled at 100Ms/s, that shows two ringing pulses that appear to be the leading and trailing edges of a drive pulse that is approximately 400ns in duration.

There is no mention in the report of the methods used to measure voltage and current for the pulsed set-up and then to calculate energy and power. It is a virtual certainty that these guys extraordinary results are the result of wildly inaccurate measurements in the pulsed set-up.

This reaserch is most probably fake ... but older japanese look valid.I was trying to replicate similar approach last few weeks but so far without luck. Creating 200 ns pulse is not so easy without expensive thyristor.

This reaserch is most probably fake ... but older japanese look valid.I was trying to replicate similar approach last few weeks but so far without luck. Creating 200 ns pulse is not so easy without expensive thyristor.

Right now i am building proper small scale test rig.

There is no need to go the thyristor route. Just get a decently rated MOSFET and use a good MOSFET driver. You will easily be able to realize 50ns or faster rise and fall times. and recreate their staed 200ns pulse which according to their oscilloscope plot was really 400ns, with an unstated repetition rate.

This report is a bit strange. The authors acknowledge that 70%-80% efficient electrolysis is currently available. Then they claim a 31X improvement over their control. Nowhere in the report did I find any sanity check of their control. So, I cranked their numbers for sanity checking purposes:

The authors claim to generate the same volume flow of gas using 0.57Watts using their pulsed set-up. That would amount not just to over unity, but a staggering 14.9W/0.57W, 26X unity.

The authors errantly describe their drive as "pulse of 200 nano second with frequency 100 MHz which is depicted in Figure 7."

Figure 7 is a trace sampled at 100Ms/s, that shows two ringing pulses that appear to be the leading and trailing edges of a drive pulse that is approximately 400ns in duration.

There is no mention in the report of the methods used to measure voltage and current for the pulsed set-up and then to calculate energy and power. It is a virtual certainty that these guys extraordinary results are the result of wildly inaccurate measurements in the pulsed set-up.

Would a pulse as seen in the screenshot below not be more expected then the mV ac signal they show in their Fig. 7?Its taken at a pulse repetition rate frequency of 100KHz, ok thats a far cry from their 100MHz

Would a pulse as seen in the screenshot below not be more expected then the mV ac signal they show in their Fig. 7?Its taken at a pulse repetition rate frequency of 100KHz, ok thats a far cry from their 100MHz

Regards Itsu

There waveform looks like they had issues with grounding. They did not offer any schematic of their measurement set-up. So, determining exactly what was going on is basically impossible. The reason that I think the bursts 400ns apart are two sides of one pulse is because the leading edge of the second burst is the opposite polarity of the first. Their DC waveform is at about 7.4 Volts which makes no sense for a 12V supply.

Your exponential pulse is the sort of thing one would expect from a flyback which sort of looks like what they wired. They describe the operation as a flyback as well. I see no justification for the SCR. And the SCR gate should be pull-dwon to the cathode.

Hi All,here comes a new sensation from an Indian university, where 2 researchershave proven, that with nanopulse excitation in an electrolysis cell you can get 31 times more HHO gas than with pure DC at the same input power.

Attached here is their PDF report findings !

Well done !

Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan & all others,

Please note that the title of this thread is misleading!

It is "only" 8 times 'Faraday'!

I received that Indian article on the 23rd of June, (5 weeks ago) from a friend in Germany.Since then I have made a VERY thorough, in-debt analysis and extensive research into this method.

I have already designed a drive circuit but at this point in time it looks as if you cannot BUY, BEG, STEAL or BORROWa single SITh! (Static Induction Thyristor)

I have e-mailed one of the Indian article authors TWICE, NGK Insulators in Japan once, (I also contacted the Australian agent for NGK Insutators two days ago), China's Trade Commerce for names of manufacturers of SITh, etc., etc.

Needless to say, NO replies from ANY of them!

The method is REAL but some of the details are wrong.

I have already written a detailed report and was about to publish it all when I discovered this thread.

So, IF you guys are interested, please read the attached document I named: "Nano-pulse electrolysis"I have also attached the Patent which EXPLAINS very well how this method works!

To some, like 'MarkE', for example, I have this advise:

Please do some STUDY on "Static Induction Thyristors" and on IES (Inductive Energy Storage) as well as the difference between Inductive and Capacitive energy storage before you make further comments showing off your ignorance!!

To be blunt, you don't have a bloody clue HOW this method works!

One way or the other, I will get to the bottom of this in (hopefully) record time!

I may also be able to substitute the SITh with some other device (like a MOSFET).

The joys of shrill. The first document is a set of shouted assertions, many that were pasted into the post above.The patent document describes using SITs in a cascode configuration to build high voltage capable switches. An IGBT could be used if the problem of the floating gate were addressed.

The patent describes charging the gate-anode capacitance with a portion of the inductor flyback. The problem remains that a discharge path for the gate charge is not provided. The next time that the circuit is to fire, the gate is charged deeply off. Other embodiments in the patent that use pulse transformers overcome the problem with the cathode to gate winding of each pulse transformer.

The joys of shrill. The first document is a set of shouted assertions, many that were pasted into the post above.The patent document describes using SITs in a cascode configuration to build high voltage capable switches. An IGBT could be used if the problem of the floating gate were addressed.

The patent describes charging the gate-anode capacitance with a portion of the inductor flyback. The problem remains that a discharge path for the gate charge is not provided. The next time that the circuit is to fire, the gate is charged deeply off. Other embodiments in the patent that use pulse transformers overcome the problem with the cathode to gate winding of each pulse transformer.

MarkE,

You may have fooled a few readers on this forum in the past with LOTS of empty words in your 2885 posts but I (for one) know who you are and what you are trying to achieve...

You are NOT very good at it.... (are you still getting paid???)

For ONCE, I will call your bluff:

Since you are SOOOOOOOO clever, please provide your EXACT, working circuit diagram for replacing the Static Induction Thyristor in this device!!If you can't, its time for you to SHUT UP!

You may have fooled a few readers on this forum in the past with LOTS of empty words in your 2885 posts but I (for one) know who you are and what you are trying to achieve...

You are NOT very good at it.... (are you still getting paid???)

For ONCE, I will call your bluff:

Since you are SOOOOOOOO clever, please provide your EXACT, working circuit diagram for replacing the Static Induction Thyristor in this device!!If you can't, its time for you to SHUT UP!

Cheers,Les Banki

More shrill, what joy! You know, if you've been struggling to come up with a circuit, then instead of being shrill you could always just ask for help. Note that the IGBT gate is properly referenced to the emitter.

There waveform looks like they had issues with grounding. They did not offer any schematic of their measurement set-up. So, determining exactly what was going on is basically impossible. The reason that I think the bursts 400ns apart are two sides of one pulse is because the leading edge of the second burst is the opposite polarity of the first. Their DC waveform is at about 7.4 Volts which makes no sense for a 12V supply.

Your exponential pulse is the sort of thing one would expect from a flyback which sort of looks like what they wired. They describe the operation as a flyback as well. I see no justification for the SCR. And the SCR gate should be pull-dwon to the cathode.

Agreed. The paper and the Figure 7 are illustrations of scope abuse. There is no data in the paper that justifies any power measurement except for the DC power level in the control.

Quote

The waveforms of the input power of the electrolytic cell are obtained by the high speed oscilloscope andfound that it is the pulsating pulse of 200 nano second with frequency 100 MHz which is depicted inFigure 7.The input power required for the production of 0.58 mL/Sec with conventional DC source is 18 watts.But the application of nano pulsed power supply power required is only 0.58 Watts.

It is even possible from this statement that they did their power math calculations on the exact screen data in Figure 7. In other words, not only are they not depicting the pulse properly, they may not even be considering an entire cycle of the pulse train. But the paper is so poorly written and lacks the detail that we here are accustomed to, even in a Joule Thief measurement! that one simply cannot tell for sure.

More shrill, what joy! You know, if you've been struggling to come up with a circuit, then instead of being shrill you could always just ask for help. Note that the IGBT gate is properly referenced to the emitter.

Sorry mark this cant simulate current surge capability of SITh thyristor.Right now only way i see is with array of IGBT in paraller

Anyway we all know that indian reaserch is not best. Thats why i post you Japanese one here.Very similar one is "Water Electrolysis with Inductive Voltage Pulses ". I think this topic is worth investigating. I dont expect any overunity but it will be nice to have ability to produce more hydrogen with smaller electrolysis without producing lot of heat.